Wakilii

Twelve Sports Rounds Limited v Manirola & Another (Miscellaneous Application 2227 of 2024)

High Court · [2024] UGCOMMC 323 · 2024 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for temporary injunction arising from civil suit for specific performance of contract
Decision
Application denied; matter proceeds to trial in main suit

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The High Court dismissed an application for temporary injunction restraining a professional boxer from participating in international matches pending determination of a contract dispute. The court held that under s.6(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, a party to an arbitration agreement may apply to court for interim measures even before arbitral proceedings. However, the applicant failed to establish irreparable damage (as monetary compensation was adequate), the balance of convenience favoured the respondent whose boxing career could be jeopardized, and granting the injunction would alter the status quo established by the termination letter. Costs were reserved to the main suit.

Outcome

Application denied; matter proceeds to trial in main suit

Facts

On 1 May 2023, Twelve Sports Rounds Limited (the applicant) entered into a five-year sponsorship and promotion contract with professional boxer Manirola Farahat (1st respondent). The applicant alleged it made significant financial investments in the respondent's promotion. In early 2024, the 1st respondent became unresponsive and on or about July–August 2024, Henry Ddamulira (2nd respondent) began acting as promoter and agent of the 1st respondent. On 12 August 2024, the 1st respondent purported to terminate the contract. The applicant issued a notice for specific performance on 9 September 2024 and filed Civil Suit No. 1248 of 2024. The applicant sought to restrain the 1st respondent from participating in an international boxing match scheduled for 9 November 2024 in Dubai and to restrain the 2nd respondent from organizing matches on behalf of the 1st respondent. The respondents opposed, arguing the termination was lawful due to exploitative terms and language barriers, that boxing was the 1st respondent's sole livelihood, and that the contract contained an arbitration clause.

Issues

  1. Whether the High Court has jurisdiction over the matter in light of the arbitration clause in the contract.
  2. Whether the applicant should be granted a temporary injunction restraining the respondents from engaging in boxing activities pending the determination of the main suit.

Orders

  • Application for temporary injunction dismissed.
  • Costs in the main suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Jurisdiction — Arbitration and Conciliation Act s.6(1) — Interim Measures by Court
Under s.6(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act Cap 5, a party to an arbitration agreement may apply to court for an interim measure of protection before or during arbitral proceedings, and the court has jurisdiction to grant that measure notwithstanding the existence of an arbitration clause.
Preliminary Objections — Timing — Objections on Jurisdiction
A preliminary objection on jurisdiction ought to be raised at the earliest time possible because its determination might dispose of the suit. Where the issue was raised in the affidavit in reply, addressed in the affidavit in rejoinder, and the applicant had opportunity to respond at hearing, the applicant is not prejudiced by the timing and the court may entertain the objection.
Temporary Injunctions — Prima Facie Case — Test
To establish a prima facie case with probability of success for purposes of a temporary injunction, an applicant need only satisfy the court that the claim is not frivolous or vexatious and that there is a serious question to be tried. The applicant is not required to demonstrate actual success, only triable issues.
Temporary Injunctions — Irreparable Damage — Adequacy of Damages
A temporary injunction should not normally be granted where damages in the measure recoverable at common law would be an adequate remedy. Where an applicant has pleaded compensatory remedies including general, special, aggravated, and punitive damages, the applicant cannot turn around and claim to suffer irreparable damage, as any injury can be restored by monetary recompense.
Temporary Injunctions — Balance of Convenience — Professional Livelihood
The balance of convenience in granting a temporary injunction lies with the party who will suffer more if not granted the relief sought. Where canceling a professional boxer's commitment to fight at an international event could jeopardize his career and livelihood, and the applicant's injury can be compensated in monetary terms, the balance of convenience favours the respondent boxer.
Temporary Injunctions — Status Quo — Effect of Contract Termination
The purpose of a temporary injunction is to preserve matters in status quo until the questions in the suit can be disposed of. Where a termination letter has been issued and remains valid until the court determines otherwise, granting a temporary injunction to enforce the contract would alter the status quo rather than preserve it. A court cannot issue a temporary injunction that would reverse the status quo.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (13)

  • American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Limited [1975] AC 396
  • GAPCO Uganda Limited v Kaweesa and Another (Misc Application No. 259 of 2013)
  • Nelson Sande Ndungo v Electoral Commission (Election Petition No. 4 of 2006)
  • Kigongo Edward Nakabale v Kakeeto Rogers and Another (Misc Application No. 144 of 2017)
  • Ndungo Seti and Others v Sekiziyivu Sammy Jones and Another (Civil Suit No. 286 of 2011)
  • Robert Kavuma v M/S Hotel International (SCCA No. 8 of 1990)
  • American Cyanamid v Ethicon [1975] 1 All ER 504
  • Madison Square Garden Boxing Inc v Shavers 434 F Supp 449 (SDNY 1977)
  • Legal Brains Trust (LBT) Ltd v Attorney General (Civil Application No. 56 of 2023)
  • Despina Pontikos [1975] EA 38
  • Peter Babigamba v Kapkwata Wood Works Ltd (Civil Suit No. 0714 of 2012)
  • ELT Kiyimba-Kagwa v Katende [1985] HCB 43
  • Mitanda Bakale Masso David v Uganda Revenue Authority (Misc Application No. 1424 of 2017)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Twelve Sports Rounds Limited v Manirola & Another (Miscellaneous Application 2227 of 2024) [2024] UGCommC 323 (6 November 2024)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.